quote:

---

Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States

---

How did this make him a good president?

Clinton made some pretty bad reforms, as I've mentioned before, such as zero tolerence, affirmative action, imprisoning doctors for medically prescribing marijuana to those who needed it, etc.

He assumed that the the American youth was stupid, intolerant, and corrupt.

As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian as well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

· Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html


read it yourself

Riiiiiight.

hahaha

so you obviously don't know Clinton supports the war and was actually planning this war before he got involved in all the other trouble he got into.

I think Clinton did a great job with the economy, and that is about it, I never hated him, but I started to dislike alot of stuff he was doing.

Agreed.

Bush is doing a better job now than Clinton ever would have done; at least that's my opinion.

Clinton shouldn't have been president.

I do not agree with some of things that clinton did and I think that most of the time he was a total idiot but he was a intelligent man and I guess can say that he wasn't the worse president this country could have.

quote:

---

Even if you don't like president bush which is very sad, i think you should at least be respectfull to him. People who HATED clinton at least didn't tell him how much they thought he sucked!!! please grow up!!

---

although this was posted a while ago, i just wanna say one word, godsgirl---

hypocrite.

and for other things, clinton may have been a terrible person, but he was a good president. he just let his personal affairs get muddled up in other things. it shouldn't be held against him. as a democratic president, i think he would have made wiser decisions with our current situation with iraq right now. yes, he should be president rather then bush.

quote:

---

Well, this is growing base and stupid, but I'll keep it up nonetheless, as I have absolutely nothing better to do, a very sad admission indeed.

---

At least we can reach an agreement on something, I suppose.

quote:

---

Yes, you did call me out in public; this is a public forum. You pointed out a certain behavior, in this case my condescension.

---

I see you have set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public, if indeed that's how you feel. And again, I never "called you out," dear. This is obviously a public forum, but this is the internet. Nobody gives a damn about your "reputation." If you only have such a reputation via the internet, so be it. Nobody cares. Why do you strive to make an important statement about what other people think about you? Pathetic.

quote:

---

What does "calling out" mean where you come from?

---

Take a random guess. It sounds like English but I don't quite understandit, but that’s debatable, as well. And since you apparently have time to spare:Idiots guide to their own "language"

quote:

---

I'm not being defensive. Being defensive would imply that I was upset about being accused of condescension, which I'm not. I actually don't care one way or the other, but as previously mentioned I have nothing better to do with my morning than clear up these minor details.

---

Try looking up THAT word in the dictionary while you're at it. You were obviously offended, hence the attitude. And I have nothing else to do, either. Meh.

quote:

---

You actually were not speaking "in general" about impeachment, you were speaking about the very specific act of impeaching the President of the United States

---

Note how terminally vague I was. Wow, there's another word you can try looking up! Don't you just love discovering your own language?

quote:

---

The word impeachment has a legal significance not found in Webster, and therefore we simply can't hold a coherent debate on this conversation if we use dictionary definitions that ignore the legal jargon

---

We've already discussed this. You're dragging this out. But that's fine. I can dispute these things accordingly. If I had -intended- to refer to any technical reference, I would have been more specific. This "debate" is not over the apparent legal jargon of this simple word; I simply intended to give a VAGUE definition of a word.

quote:

---

it is to avoid such confusion that when we speak of impeaching a president, we use very specific definitions which you are for some reason refusing to recognize; more misleading than ignorant but that's cool...maybe that's just how you roll.

---

How I “roll?” Where the hell do you live? Anyway, since you’re so incredibly adamant about this subject, yet claim it’s rather “stupid,” I’ll just directly state what I meant in order to prevent further confusion.

Legally the term impeachment applies only to the indictment. In popular usage, as with your “politically correctness,” it also embraces the trial of the accused, usually conducted by the higher branch of a legislature. In the United States the power to impeach resides SOLELY on the House of Representatives; the power to try an impeachment case resides solely with the Senate. And repeated attempts in Congress to abridge impeachment or to establish a special court for the removal of judges have fallen before the enduring conviction that the present procedure is a necessary element of the system of checks and balances. By making impeachment difficult, the Constitution guards against the intrusion of the legislature into the business of the judiciary and executive branches. It also ensures that impeachment remains primarily a legal, or judicial, procedure rather than a political process. If the House of Representatives discovers that the President, which is -who- I was referring to, has made -past- offenses, impeachment charges may be brought up against him/her, and he/she may be impeached. Attempts have been made to impeach a number of presidents, but only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were in real danger of being removed from office. But I’m sure you were already aware of that, eh?

quote:

---

Defensive much? I was agreeing with you and you attack me anyway--maybe my reading comprehension should not be the one in question here.

---

I apologize for supposedly attacking you. I'm a b-itch, but that's just the "way I roll."

quote:

---

Lastly, I find my sarcasm and my arrogance charming and not in the least bit bland, demoralizing, or aggravating.

---

But -I- don't, which was the point. It was bland sarcasm.

quote:

---

"Jesus, look this stuff up before you freak out and get defensive" was not sarcastic. How could that be interpreted as sarcastic? It's actual advice, and good advice at that. I was not making comment on your religious beliefs, and it's a bit of a stretch for you to imply that I was.

---

I was referring to your "Jesus" comment. I cannot detect sarcasm via online, so I was an assumption. And it's not good advice, because it doesn't apply to me, considering I spend most of my online time looking things up; that and pointlessly arguing with indivduals here.

quote:

---

I don't see why you couldn't look it up yourself--let me know if you have any other dictionary needs.

---

It was for your benefit. And sure, I'll let you know if I need something looked up. As a matter of fact, you can try looking up pomposity, which is what you fundamentally already did. But you said you had time to spare…

hehe, you girls are funny

Well, this is growing base and stupid, but I'll keep it up nonetheless, as I have absolutely nothing better to do, a very sad admission indeed.

1.) Yes, you did call me out in public; this is a public forum. You pointed out a certain behavior, in this case my condescension. What does "calling out" mean where you come from? I'm not being defensive. Being defensive would imply that I was upset about being accused of condescension, which I'm not. I actually don't care one way or the other, but as previously mentioned I have nothing better to do with my morning than clear up these minor details.

2.) You actually were not speaking "in general" about impeachment, you were speaking about the very specific act of impeaching the President of the United States. The word impeachment has a legal significance not found in Webster, and therefore we simply can't hold a coherent debate on this conversation if we use dictionary definitions that ignore the legal jargon. You ask why you would need legal jargon? Quite simply, you would need to use it so that you don't sound like an idiot, but we're clearly past that point. Using the dictionary brand definition that you provided, I could say "The President stole my lunch money," and that statement would qualify as impeachment; it is to avoid such confusion that when we speak of impeaching a president, we use very specific definitions which you are for some reason refusing to recognize; more misleading than ignorant but that's cool...maybe that's just how you roll.

3.) Yes, you did bring up the phrase "certain charges." It was April 7, 2003 at 10:33pm...ring any bells? I don't think the problem was in my poor reading, so much as your poor writing. Perhaps I would understand "concepts in their ideal context" (whatever that means) if you laid them out more clearly. Also, I was kind of agreeing with you; there are "certain charges" which constitute impeachable offenses and can be successfully prosecuted in the Senate as articles of impeachment. All I was doing was clarifying that I had already mentioned more specifically your vague "certain charges" in a previous post. Defensive much? I was agreeing with you and you attack me anyway--maybe my reading comprehension should not be the one in question here.

4.) Lastly, I find my sarcasm and my arrogance charming and not in the least bit bland, demoralizing, or aggravating. "Jesus, look this stuff up before you freak out and get defensive" was not sarcastic. How could that be interpreted as sarcastic? It's actual advice, and good advice at that. I was not making comment on your religious beliefs, and it's a bit of a stretch for you to imply that I was.

Oh, and I looked up arrogant for you: "exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner." I don't see why you couldn't look it up yourself--let me know if you have any other dictionary needs.

quote:

---

But if you have the right to call me out in public over my condescending attitude and try to make me feel bad about it, I certainly have the right to continue being condescending. Let's call it even

---

I "called you out" in public? This is a forum. I didn't stand in the middle of traffic and proclaim my thoughts about your attitude You don't have to be so defensive, and I apologize if I made you feel bad; that was not my intention. But alright: we're even, I suppose.

quote:

---

But when you are talking about impeachment in the context of law and the Constitution, it tkaes on the qualities of legal jargon, making your dictionary definitions irrelevant at best and misleading and ignorant sounding at worst, take your pick.

---

Since I was speaking in general, why would I -need- to use legal jargon? My dictionary definitions are quite basic. If I was intending to address something more specific, I would have rightly done so. They were by no means misleading or ignorant unless you’re unable to process simple information, which is significantly debatable.

quote:

---

I very specifically laid out the possible scenarios in which a president can be impeached, which was a bit more specific than your "certain charges."

---

I never cited "certain charges;" I gave a vague interpretation on the stance of a person holding political power being impeached because of imminent charges, depending on the severity of that individual’s case. You may want to try reading a bit more slowly so you can sufficiently understand concepts in their ideal context.

quote:

---

Jesus, look this stuff up before you freak out and get defensive.

---

First of all, your bland sarcasm is unappealing. And, if in some case, it wasn’t sarcasm and was meant to be taken literally, I don’t believe in Jesus. And I never freaked out, nor was/am I defensive. I just find arrogant people demoralizing and aggravating. And I do look this “stuff” up, and not just in Merriam-Webster dictionaries.

Try looking up “arrogant” in the dictionary.

Click here to enter Hell: a world of "deception and ignorance"

I realize that I wasn't obligated to write back, but I felt that the misinformed deserved the benefit of my words. Condescending? Maybe. But if you have the right to call me out in public over my condescending attitude and try to make me feel bad about it, I certainly have the right to continue being condescending. Let's call it even.

I think the dictionary brand of impeachment is just peachy if you're talking about someone having "unimpeachable morals" or something. That's great. It's a $2.50 word and you should drop it at parties. But when you are talking about impeachment in the context of law and the Constitution, it tkaes on the qualities of legal jargon, making your dictionary definitions irrelevant at best and misleading and ignorant sounding at worst, take your pick.

When I said "You can't impeach a guy just because you don't like him" I was referring to my previous posts from a couple of weeks ago, at which time I very specifically laid out the possible scenarios in which a president can be impeached, which was a bit more specific than your "certain charges." Jesus, look this stuff up before you freak out and get defensive.

The impeachment conversation is stupid because there is no legitimate argument in support of impeaching President Bush. I will continue to maintain its stupidity as long as people keep bringing it up.

Affirmative action sucks...
Yes, I think that we would be better off with Clinton-- I dont like hm as a person, but he was a good president.

quote:

---

Alright! We're back to impeachment! That's so two weeks ago! But whatever, let's do it again.

---

You weren't obligated to reply to the impeachment topic. Of course, your opinions are welcome, but the condescending attitude is not.

quote:

---

Two presidents have been impeached, if you are using the legal definition of impeachment and not the dictionary brand provided by Gemini.

---

I apologize, is an official dictionary not legitimate enough for you? The "dictionary brand" of the word impeach supported the additional aspects of impeachment, if you even read it.

quote:

---

Let me repeat for the ump-teenth time, you can't impeach a guy just because you don't like him. It just doesn't work that way.

---

Why repeat this again? It's too redundant. You're right, but I will repeat this for you: a politician can be impeached if certain charges are brought up against him or her.

quote:

---

The impeachment conversation is stupid and we should really let it go.

---

I will ask again: why did you reply? I, for one, am interested in this impeachment conversation, and it's in my rights to discuss it. Don't reply to this thread if you find it so stupid.

True. However, the first Bush administration expected that the Saddam regime would fall after the war as well.

quote:

---

he is only trying to finish what his dad started

---

The goal of the first Gulf War was never to take Baghdad, nor was it to decimate the Iraqi military. All we set out to do then was to get Iraq out of Kuwait while leaving their military strong enough to protect themselves against Iran.

well i really don't like politics and i am anti war but my mom thinks i am stupid but oh well i am for the soliders but not the war andi really don't like our president he is only trying to finish what his dad started yes them people over there need there freedom but i think if he is going to send people over there he should send the people that are in prison for life for killing someone. well that is all i have to say for now please tell me what you think just email me

Well just want to say Sorry for bringing back up an issue that was talked about awhile ago, and I just want to say that I agree w/ all of your statements about impeachment and the war. Thanks again for the clarity.